but I think the total VSE funds spent in 2020 will exceed that figure (and, I've read, many agree with me)

Unless the next congress cancels the whole program. While almost all agree that the cost will be over the original projections (what NASA program isn't?), a substantial minority of opinion is that the whole vision will not survive the next presidential election, and maybe not even the upcoming midterm elections.

gaetanomarano wrote:

SpaceX must have its first succesful launch, then, more launches, then, the R&D funds ...

They will. They have already started building Falcon9, so that R&D is already paid for. And unlike congress, Musk is not out of money or resolve yet!

if that will happen, it will be 90% a NASA blame because they have planned a complex and expensive way to come back to the moon

e.g. the use of a capsule for six (for a 4-astronauts mission) that needs a big SM that needs a new rocket to launch the extra-weight that needs a new 5-segments SRB that needs (only the new SRB) up to 3 years of extra R&D work and up to $3B of extra R&D funds

just imagine that NASA resize the mission for 3 astronauts... it will need a smaller CEV, a smaller SM and a ready available mid-rocket like Atlas or Delta...

5+ years of R&D time, $5B saved... and the first manned CEV launch in 2011 instead of 2015...

etc. etc. etc.

Quote:

...Musk is not out of money or resolve yet!

unfortunately, the funds necessary to develop and build NASA-like vehicles are one/two order bigger than Musk's money...

I didn't say that the Congress will give the VSE to NASA - the VSE originally has come from NASA.

The whole process is similar to the process I accepted to buy my apartment here in Hamburg:

1. Someone who needs or wants money has to go to someone who has the money and might be willing to give a portion of his money to the first "someone" - if and only if this first "someone" tells him what he will use the money for. This "what" is a project - in my case it's the appartment I bought in NASA's case it's the first or actual point of the VSE.

2. (I now call the second "someone" the funder and the first "someone" the fund-taker.) The funder listens to or reads the description of the project and asks questions - in my case I had to tell my own capital for example while NASA had to tell possibilities how to restructure their budget(s) and thus to free existing budget-portions for the first point of the VSE.

3. Based on informations and answers the funder decides hwo much money he is willing to give to the fund-taker. In my case I got a bit more than 90% and had to fill up 10% out of my own capital while NASA may be forced to modify their imaginations about point one of the VSE which then may be the first deviation off the VSE.

The VSE is something the Congress calls for and it is given by NASA to the Congress - not the other direction. Based on informations the Congress might or might not give money to NASA - which is the opposite direction the VSE has gone. The Congress is the - potential - funder while NASA is the fund-taker.

Regarding SpaceX - SpaceX is independent and has funds that are not restricted to one budget-year while NASA is dependent of the Congress and allways has only funds that are restricted to one budget year. This is so because of the laws and the huge institutional differences between SpaceX and NASA.

I never spilt a reply to many posts, I only write a reply to a single post of a single user

Quite admirable, in concept. However, multiple posts have a habit of cluttering things, and, as I said, you can quote multiple sources (and sources multiple times) in a single post.

gaetanomarano wrote:

also, I try to post brief replies to avoid the thread become too long

Again, quite admirable.

gaetanomarano wrote:

write many replies in a single post needs more time, cut & paste, etc.

Not really, as it saves you from having to reload the page multiple times.

gaetanomarano wrote:

and, about long posts...

I never said your posts were too long; I was pointing out that double- and triple-posting is generally considered very rude on a webboard.

gaetanomarano wrote:

you've a signature that is three times long your post... why don't write it horizontal instead of vertical?

Honestly, because the thought hadn't occurred to me. Now that it has (many sincere thanks to you), I've changed my sigline.

***

Okay, enough with being an Admin. Back on topic.

Again, gaetanomarano, I urge you to study national-level politics. Then study international politics. A few simple books should be enough to get you grounded in the subject.

NASA has no money. NASA has no hardware. NASA has no guarantees whatsoever that it will ever get the funding to build the hardware with, much less permission to build said hardware the way they want to. NASA gets its money from Congress, and therefore has to follow Congress's directions as to what to do with that money. All money that NASA has is a gift from the government, and can be reclaimed at any time. On the other hand, any money that, say, SpaceX has is from legitimate earnings, and is completely secure.

contradiction #1: you have written two long posts to suggest me to write short posts... the difference of lenght from single and multiple posts is the signature, and, with the space you used in your two posts, I can post two dozens of signatures/extra space... also, your signature's lenght is six times mine, then, with a few dozens of your signatures less, we can save a full page...

contradiction #2: we all know all the politics we need without read the books you suggest, but, why study "international politics" about VSE plan if NASA don't want to share its plan with other nations/partners? ...next days ESA will decide to build a new capsule with Russia since NASA don't want ESA as a full partner...

contradiction #3: if NASA don't have money... why they follow the most expensive way? ...four astronauts instead of three, two rockets instead of one, 15 years instead of 10, a new SRB instead of a 4-seg. SRB, 99% expendable hardware instead of a reusable-LSAM, etc. etc. etc.

the problem of the VSE funds really is as complex as I described it - because the laws force it to be as described.

Regarding the current President/Congress wanting the plan come true you seem to be in a significant error:

1. I don't know this moment if you are an US-citizen or if you are living in Italia - so I perhaps should point to a significant difference between the political system of the US and the political systems of Europe except France and Switzerland. The main difference is that in the US the President and the Congress are nearly completely separated fromeach other and also are elected separately while in Europe the prime ministers and chancellors are elected by the parliaments and thus there is nearly no separation between the parliaments and the governments. In the US sometimes the President is controlled by a congressional majority of the opposition while this nearly never occurs in european countries except some scandinavian countries.

This means that in the US the President might want the Bush plan as actually is the case of course while the Congress' interest in the plan will not be that large as the President's interest is. Also one third of the Congress-chamber Senate is going to be subject to elections each year - which emans that the Senators will be listening to the voters much more closely than european representants. So due to the system the Congress permanently is keeping significantly more distance to the President and the government than european parliaments are doing.

2. Because of point 1 the President wants the plan to come true while the Congress wants to keep the required budget (=fund) within stable and close limits which can be read in some articles under www.space.com . The US budget has a deficit if I remember correct and there are trade balace problems. The congress has to deal with these, it has to handle them and so has a view significantly different to the President - this difference nearly never can occur in Europe.

3. While the President wants the plan to come true but has no money he can't give money to NASA to enable NASA to make his plans reality. And while the Congress has the money - taxes and debth - to enable NASA it doesn't want the plan to come true to that degree the President wants and so keeps NASA within limits the President wouldn't.

This system of checks and balances keeps it all going on but within limits. In contrary to this in Europe except Switzerland and France the prime-ministers or chancellors on the one side and their (!) majorities in the parliaments mostly want nearly the same - which often results in unreasonable and unsane lacks of limits or nearly complete breakdowns of plans, projects etc.

The President wants but the Congress does NOT want to that degree and this limits the funds for VSE.

Private companies on the other hand tend to look for and find ways to do things at less costs than NASA - and they tend to be willing to accept longer time to achieve a goal. They all have the ability to get into orbit - it's their ability to do that at less costs what' on topic and interesting.

I know how the US political system works and the problems between President and Congress

also, you must add two further problems: bureucracy and Irak war costs

but, when I talk of VSE or other (NASA/ESA) space plans, I don't consider the political problem, because (simply) if NASA will have the money can do the missions, while, if they don't receive the money, they can't!

I prefer to talk of the "better ways to use the money NASA will receive"

in other words... if NASA will receive "n" billion in "x" years... it's better to build a big or a small rocket, use a single-launch or an 1.5-launch architecture... etc.

about private companies... they have only TWO advantages vs. NASA:

1. less bureaucracy

2. no political control

but they have MANY GIANT disadvantages vs. NASA, ESA, etc.:

1. they can invest a few million$ per year while NASA (when receive the funds) invests many billion$

2. space agencies don't need to make profits from their work (and may have many unsuccessful missions) while privates MUST have profits in a reasonable number of years (and "space exploration" will not give profits in the next 20+ years) also, an accident like Columbia may destroy a private company!

3. NASA has 40+ years of experience, while privates starts now to do things NASA made years ago... SSO does the same of X-15 but 45 years after... and, so far, privates have not accomplished the simplest job NASA already made 45+ years ago: "launch a rocket to earth orbit".....................

4. NASA, ESA and Russia have army of scientists and engineers with dozens years fo REAL experience and hundreds of success, while small privates have some retired NASA engineers and a few rookies

5. space agencies have giant infrastructures, while privates starts now with an hangar

6. NASA can use (and can PAY) the technologies, know how, engineers and products of big companies like Boeing, LM, etc. while privates must build tanks, engines and electronics by itself

7. etc. etc. etc.

of course, that may change in future (like was with Apple, Microsoft, HP, etc.) but it needs MANY MANY YEARS

unfortunately, the funds necessary to develop and build NASA-like vehicles are one/two order bigger than Musk's money...

Falcon 9 is a NASA-like vehicle. He will need more money for the BFR though. That will be bigger than any NASA vehicle. But he does not need more money to take the Falcon line all the way to profitability. He has enough money in his own pocket for that.

The goal is to back larger payloads rather than getting bogged down in the idea that all we need are comsats, milsats, weather sats--etc. ULA and the rest of the world have that market. Also--EELV assembly costs more than CalV due to pad delays, assmbly headaches like those of ISS, etc.

but a giant rocket may be a good solution to send the propellant in orbit

the full CEV/SM/LSAM/EDS will be around 150 mT but 100 mT of them are LOX and LH2 !

if NASA will find the technologies to store LOX/LH2 in space for years, they can send 500 mT of fuel in orbit (for 5 missions) with a single giant rocket and the (refuelable) vehicles with a small and low cost rocket

okay so far regarding some of your recent arguments if and only IF NASA would get money and then - after receiving the money - could decide of their own how to use that money, for which vehicles and so on. But this really never is the case. .

NASA never can get the money without previously determining what they will do with that money - NASA never can get money from the Congress and afterwards decide what to do by it. Democracy, Constitution and the laws don't allow for that. NASA must tell what they will do by it and then gets money from the Congress. NASA gets the money as part of the complete governmenatl budget the Congress decides on. This budget is a law the government has to obey to - and NASA is part of the government. The budget-law determines for what concrete purposes which amount of money has to spent.

In short - the Congress allways decides also for what purposes the money has to be used - regarding NASA this means that the Congress decides what vehicles have to be bought. ALLWAYS. The Congress never decides about the amount of money only but also about the purposes..

For these reasons your arguments are academic completely because the situation you have in mind never can or will come true. That situation only can happen to private companies - and they are nearly allways in that situation. And there are arguments meaning that the privates really can and will produce, get or use those vehicles cheaper than NASA. Ass said very often by several experts and also at this board by some posters NASA has a safety and security overhead and they are condemned to have large bureacracy - that's they fate of being governmental.

the CEV/SM can be sent in space within 2010 with an Ariane5 ...like I explain in my new article (with a beautiful image of the CEV/Ariane5 at lift-off!) here:

They can't, why ? "politics, regulations, etc".

Engineering, hardware etc.. isn't the only thing.. humans are a lot more complex to work with. Especially for NASA, how are they going to explain to congress and all those states that they will put thousands of people without work and use an alien rocket instead ? not to mention the problems with ITAR etc etc.

If it was about technology, and only technology, we would have been on mars long time ago.. but development is about people.. less about what's "possible".

gaetanomarano wrote:

contradiction #3: if NASA don't have money... why they follow the most expensive way? ...four astronauts instead of three, two rockets instead of one, 15 years instead of 10, a new SRB instead of a 4-seg. SRB, 99% expendable hardware instead of a reusable-LSAM, etc. etc. etc.

Because they need to write the great nice looking ideas on paper.. , with very nice words, with many nice things for the people who don't give a damn about space... convince the congress and others, often with a lot of not necessary parts, to give people work, to convince politicians etc..
So please explain, how spacecowboy made a contradiction ? I think it's just more complex than just "money", so I have to agree with Spacecowboy.

EDIT: humm I see Ekkerhard wrote about the same.. and posted just a little time before me.. while I was writing. I agree with Ekkerhard's point of view.

...never can get money from the Congress and afterwards decide what to do by it...

I agree that politics tend to control everything, but they can't since they are not engineers nor scientists

in last six months after ESAS plan publishing, NASA have already done BIG changes to the plan... changes that affect the main parts of the rockets (like the SSME) costs (like the +2B of the SRB) timeline (like the new date for the first CEV launch and the first lunar landing) etc... and many many other will happen in future!

all changes made with the politics' support or indifference, because politics know they CAN'T suggest to NASA which engine, propellent, alloy, microchip they must use to accomplish the given missions

also, if NASA wants to change something of very important that needs a political approval, they (simply) explain why that change is useful (for safety, costs, etc.) and the Congress may give (I think WILL give) its support

they are NOT stupid, they are able to understand if something is useful or not for their country!

especially now that many countries (like Russia and China) have the money and the technology to win the (new, despite not admited) moon race!

about my suggestion of a BIG-CaLV... it may have so many advantages that, if NASA decide to build it, the Congress will give ALL the money to build it!

in fact, why don't build a rocket that MULTIPLIES BY TEN the US' exploration and presence on the moon with the same funds!

I think that it may have the support of president, congress, military, press, scientists, engineers, contractors, astronauts, etc. because ALL them will have one+ advantages from MORE exploration with LESS costs!

1. politics know that costs may double... with the simplest solution costs will be stable

2. politics and military don't like to wait 10+ years to have an indipendent access to space

true... Ariane5 is Europen (and great part is French...) but it's better than fly 10+ years with an old Soviet capsule! ...that, I think, it's a little humiliating...

ESA can give free the rockets and NASA will give some "seats" in the moon missions

and... if USA have fear of a "French embargo"... ESA may give 20 rockets before the first launch... 20 Ariane5 will be sufficient for all test flights, all ISS flights and a dozen of moon missions... ALL rockets NASA needs in the next 20 years!!!

Quote:

...great nice looking ideas on paper.. , with very nice words, with many nice things for the people who don't give a damn about space...

the BIG-CaLV si very useful for that NASA policy!

Quote:

...convince the congress and others, often with a lot of not necessary parts, to give people work, to convince politicians etc...

then... they ARE able to convince politics... if they want

Quote:

...how spacecowboy made a contradiction...

the contradiction are in NASA choices, not in spacecowboy opinion... but, if spacecowboy agrees with NASA choices, he is in contradiction like NASA

the ESAS "principles" (as I've explained in my posts) are FULL of contradiction, like...